South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Western 52]

Just a quick question. One of the reasons TfW give for the current closures is to remove the old footbridge at Treforest. The press release says it's been donated to a heritage railway. Out of interest, does anyone know which one? The release doesn't say but I guess the Pontypool & Blaenavon could do with one for Blaenavon (HL).

Gwili Railway I think.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Gwili Railway I think.

Correct

 

[rf_ioliver]

What happened to the old Devil's Bridge? Was it just cut up? Anyone got any pictures of the new bridge? Will be a long time before I get the chance to visit it again

 

[MikePJ]

There are two week-long blockades coming up - one starts this Sunday, and another at the end of October.

Autumn engineering works | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

Some of the works taking place during the 9-day closure include:

• Track works across the network, including at Pontypridd station, Trefforest Estate station and along the Merthyr, Aberdare and lower Treherbert lines
• Work on the overhead wires through Abercynon station
• New buffer stops at Treherbert station
• Continued station works at Ynyswen on the Treherbert line to install a new access for all bridge and station platform
• Continued work at Fernhill station on the Aberdare line to install a new ramped footbridge
• The dismantling of the original Trefforest station stepped footbridge, which will be donated to a heritage railway
• Taff’s Well platform works to deliver level boarding from train to platform, ready for the introduction of the tram-trains
• Vegetation management and clean-up works across the network
• Drainage works across the network, including at Trehafod, Fernhill and Dinas Rhondda
• Maintenance work to strengthen a retaining wall in Troedyrhiw on the Merthyr line
• Signalling work near Quakers Yard on the Merthyr line and through Pontypridd station

 

[MrCheeseGrater]

The Coryton branch is to be energised in the "next few weeks." Overhead Line Equipment safety campaigns have begun in local schools and leaflets to trackside neighbours delivered.

 

[MikePJ]

The Coryton branch is to be energised in the "next few weeks."

On 30th October, according to the consultation that came out a little while ago.

In other news, 756s are planned to go into service on Nov 11th (on some routes as yet to be announced but most likely one via Pontypridd), at least according to Lurcheroo on the 756 thread.

 

[Lurcheroo]

In other news, 756s are planned to go into service on Nov 11th (on some routes as yet to be announced but most likely one via Pontypridd), at least according to Lurcheroo on the 756 thread.

Don’t sell me out like that who knows if they’ll actually make it into service that day!(I’m kidding haha), it’s just what has been sent out,

 

[Bob Price]

Be surprised if it's not Pontypridd valleys so they can stand down some 150's. Possibility is also Coryton, Penarth , Caerphilly schedules for the 3 car units.

 

[Markdvdman]

When I was waiting for the 5:15am rail replacement bus from Merthyr to Radyr this AM I struck up a conversation with the guy overseeing it. We were talking about trams, he was shocked they are running trams with the gradients upwards from Radyr. He was referring to Manchester Metro. He said it was great, but once you get out of the city, with bad weather, look out. On one trip when he was in Fleet, a tram struggled with ice etc, a diesel had no issues. All down to the weight with trams being so light. Apparently, they had a couple of guys over from Spain as the glass on the 398s is not good enough.

That was his opinion and what he was told. These trams are new so I am not judging until I use them!

 

[John R]

Trams in Fleet?

 

[59CosG95]

Trams in Fleet?

I suspect @Markdvdman meant the Fleet Department. The good people of Fleet, Hampshire don't need trams when they have their Range Rover Evoques

 

[Markdvdman]

He was working in Fleet at the time doh sorry ha ha. I shall get my coat I think

 

[WelshBluebird]

When I was waiting for the 5:15am rail replacement bus from Merthyr to Radyr this AM I struck up a conversation with the guy overseeing it. We were talking about trams, he was shocked they are running trams with the gradients upwards from Radyr. He was referring to Manchester Metro. He said it was great, but once you get out of the city, with bad weather, look out. On one trip when he was in Fleet, a tram struggled with ice etc, a diesel had no issues. All down to the weight with trams being so light. Apparently, they had a couple of guys over from Spain as the glass on the 398s is not good enough.

That was his opinion and what he was told. These trams are new so I am not judging until I use them!

There is a difference between a tram vehicle (like is in use in Manchester) and a tram train vehicle (like the 398s). Whilst I'm not an expert by any means, I was under the impression tram trains like the 398s are much more similar to trains than they are trams (which is why they are able to be used in mixed fleets on the same tracks etc).

 

[John R]

I suspect @Markdvdman meant the Fleet Department. The good people of Fleet, Hampshire don't need trams when they have their Range Rover Evoques

Aha, I thought of Fleetwood maybe, but didn't consider a department of that name. You can tell I'm not in the industry!

 

[Yindee8191]

When I was waiting for the 5:15am rail replacement bus from Merthyr to Radyr this AM I struck up a conversation with the guy overseeing it. We were talking about trams, he was shocked they are running trams with the gradients upwards from Radyr. He was referring to Manchester Metro. He said it was great, but once you get out of the city, with bad weather, look out. On one trip when he was in Fleet, a tram struggled with ice etc, a diesel had no issues. All down to the weight with trams being so light. Apparently, they had a couple of guys over from Spain as the glass on the 398s is not good enough.

That was his opinion and what he was told. These trams are new so I am not judging until I use them!

Unfortunately/luckily, TfW will not be running regular light trams. The 398s have heavy batteries in them which brings them close to the weight of a regular train.

 

[The exile]

When I was waiting for the 5:15am rail replacement bus from Merthyr to Radyr this AM I struck up a conversation with the guy overseeing it. We were talking about trams, he was shocked they are running trams with the gradients upwards from Radyr. He was referring to Manchester Metro. He said it was great, but once you get out of the city, with bad weather, look out. On one trip when he was in Fleet, a tram struggled with ice etc, a diesel had no issues. All down to the weight with trams being so light. Apparently, they had a couple of guys over from Spain as the glass on the 398s is not good enough.

That was his opinion and what he was told. These trams are new so I am not judging until I use them!

Surely trams cope with much steeper gradients than heavy rail and in climates far harsher than South Wales?

 

[edwin_m]

A train is heavier than a tram, which may help to push rail contaminants out of the way. But other than that sort of effect, weight doesn't make much difference - the friction between the wheel and the rail is proportional to weight, but so is the force to accelerate or decelerate it. Other things being equal the acceleration and deceleration will be the same.

However other things usually aren't equal. A tram has proportionately more of its axles motored than most trains so can accelerate better, has more responsive traction and braking for safe operation in traffic, and makes much more use of sanders. It also has a track brake for emergencies, which will decelerate it at about 25% of gravity which is about twice the maximum emergency brake on a train.

A tram-train is more like a tram than a train. It's a bit heavier built than a tram but doesn't have structural crashworthiness to railway standards, so extra train protection is usually needed to make collisions less likely. It has various safety features for railway operation such as compliant lighting, glazing and train protection (such as TPWS), and it may also be able to operate off railway overhead traction voltage. The 398s are unusual in having only 25kV (plus batteries) with no 750V capability for street operation. The ones in Sheffield are dual-voltage, though the 25kV isn't used, and also low floor.

 

[MikePJ]

Surely trams cope with much steeper gradients than heavy rail and in climates far harsher than South Wales?

The Isle of Man has its trams climb a mountain, and no rack assistance either!

This week’s issue of RAIL has a feature on the Metro (and also Cardiff East Parkway). A couple of nuggets from the article:

• Train crews will start working out of Taff’s Well depot “later in the Autumn” and this will allow more intensive testing and crew training on the 398s
• 398s will enter service “next summer” and initially be deployed on the Pontypridd to Cardiff Bay service

 

[Markdvdman]

It is not looking good for the 398s as per timeframe. Next summer means June really so we will probably not see them on the TAM lines until autumn 2025. A full 2 years after initially promised. The knock on effect is they will probably see a mixture of 150s and 756s until then meaning the likes of Penarth will see delays on the 231s. Hmm let us hope the timeframe improves for everybody!

 

[Lurcheroo]

It is not looking good for the 398s as per timeframe. Next summer means June really so we will probably not see them on the TAM lines until autumn 2025. A full 2 years after initially promised. The knock on effect is they will probably see a mixture of 150s and 756s until then meaning the likes of Penarth will see delays on the 231s. Hmm let us hope the timeframe improves for everybody!

It is pretty unlikely that it will improve (move to an earlier date) however there is always a chance it will get pushed back.

Getting the 756’s in will be an improvement, it then just depends on the state of the 150 and 153 fleets which are due to leave. If they can cover until the 398’s are ready then it won’t be too bad.
If they can’t then the state of service may become a bit dire.

 

[MikePJ]

How many diagrams are there on the TAM routes at present? I was wondering whether the four-car 756s would be sufficient to cover them, leaving the 3-cars to cover Penarth/Caerphilly/Coryton. If that’s the case it may be possible to just leave Sprinters on the Pontypridd-Bay service until the 398s replace them. (Edit: there are 17 four-cars and 7 three-cars)

Meanwhile…

Another track access consultation has appeared on the website: https://tfw.wales/projects/metro/south-wales-metro/cvl-consultation

This is for some minor amendments to the timetable on the Rhymney line, and also removing some train slots that are currently allocated but not used on the Rhymney and Coryton lines.

Quoting from the Form P:

1.5 Executive summary of the proposed contract or amendment:
The purpose of this application is to amend TfW Rail’s access rights to reflect changes to its timetable due to:

a) some freight paths having been removed from the timetable; and
b) long-term overnight engineering access on the CVL Network having been curtailed earlier than expected.

This allows TfW Rail to infill some gaps that currently exist in the standard hourly timetable on the Rhymney line and the Coryton line, for which changes to access rights are required.

Weekdays:
• 4 additional access rights between Rhymney and CVL East Boundary
• 4 additional access rights between CVL East Boundary and Rhymney

The opportunity is also being taken to remove some unrequired access rights on the Coryton line(Coryton to East Boundary and vice versa) and on the Rhymney line (Bargoed to East Boundary and vice versa).

Saturday:
• 2 additional access rights between Rhymney and East Boundary

The opportunity is also being taken to remove 1 unrequired access right on the Rhymney line between East Boundary and Bargoed.

The additional services are ‘infills’ in the standard hourly timetable on the Rhymney line and the Coryton line.

Sunday:
• 1 additional access right between East Boundary and Caerphilly.
This was previously missing.

This application facilitates restoration of timetable, which had been reduced to enable planned engineering access, as part of the CVL Metro Transformation Programme. Aspects of the programme have latterly been de-scoped, reducing the engineering access required and permitting re-instatement of services.

Because the access rights support the infill of gaps in the standard hourly timetable, it is expected that this greater consistency will have no impact on performance and could have a positive impact. In particular, the relevant trains already work diagrams which are currently amended at certain points to accommodate these gaps in the timetable (e.g. terminating short; going onto depot and coming back out again). The trains will instead stay in passenger service working the standard hourly pattern timetable.

Looks like a slightly more regular timetable will appear on the Rhymney line in future (perhaps at the December timetable change, given this consultation closes on Nov 1st). I’m curious as to what has been “de-scoped” though…

 

[AdamWW]

How many diagrams are there on the TAM routes at present? I was wondering whether the four-car 756s would be sufficient to cover them, leaving the 3-cars to cover Penarth/Caerphilly/Coryton. If that’s the case it may be possible to just leave Sprinters on the Pontypridd-Bay service until the 398s replace them. (Edit: there are 17 four-cars and 7 three-cars)

Meanwhile…

Another track access consultation has appeared on the website: https://tfw.wales/projects/metro/south-wales-metro/cvl-consultation

This is for some minor amendments to the timetable on the Rhymney line, and also removing some train slots that are currently allocated but not used on the Rhymney and Coryton lines.

Quoting from the Form P:









Looks like a slightly more regular timetable will appear on the Rhymney line in future (perhaps at the December timetable change, given this consultation closes on Nov 1st). I’m curious as to what has been “de-scoped” though…

Can anyone explain in simple terms what they are actually planning on doing?

I'm afraid I can't make any sense of it.

I would have thought the table with black numbers struck out and red ones added would show (respectively) the current and proposed services.

But this seems to be saying that on weekdays they are removing one Coryton service (or maybe an unused path?) each way, while also removing all 4 existing morning peak paths in one direction while adding one going the other way, and removing all the evening peak paths in one direction only.

And Saturday has many more peak services than a weekday.

What am I missing?

Maybe the Rhymney line entries make sense but it's harder to interpret because of trains terminated short of Rhymney.

Are the actual times specified somewhere I missed or do they have to produce all this paperwork without actually specifying the details?

 

[MikePJ]

Can anyone explain in simple terms what they are actually planning on doing?

I'm afraid I can't make any sense of it.

I would have thought the table with black numbers struck out and red ones added would show (respectively) the current and proposed services.

But this seems to be saying that on weekdays they are removing one Coryton service (or maybe an unused path?) each way, while also removing all 4 existing morning peak paths in one direction while adding one going the other way, and removing all the evening peak paths in one direction only.

And Saturday has many more peak services than a weekday.

What am I missing?

Maybe the Rhymney line entries make sense but it's harder to interpret because of trains terminated short of Rhymney.

Are the actual times specified somewhere I missed or do they have to produce all this paperwork without actually specifying the details?

Quick answer: it’s not at all obvious! They’re not obliged to publish the target timetable, but sometimes it’s possible to guess. According to the covering notes the Coryton changes are just supposed to be removing an unused path, but the peak/off-peak thing is a bit weird.

 

[AdamWW]

Quick answer: it’s not at all obvious! They’re not obliged to publish the target timetable, but sometimes it’s possible to guess. According to the covering notes the Coryton changes are just supposed to be removing an unused path, but the peak/off-peak thing is a bit weird.

Interesting. So despite owning the lines and being the only day to day operator, they have to go through a bereaucratic exercise to find out who might object but don't have to actually provide details?

Perhaps since it's unlikely that anybody is actually going to care there isn't much point spending time ensuring that the document actually makes sense.

The covering notes do refer to removing a path on the Coryton line, but also say: "The additional services are ‘infills’ in the standard hourly timetable on the Rhymney line and the Coryton line."

 

[MikePJ]

Quick answer: it’s not at all obvious! They’re not obliged to publish the target timetable, but sometimes it’s possible to guess. According to the covering notes the Coryton changes are just supposed to be removing an unused path, but the peak/off-peak thing is a bit weird.

One further thing - I found in the contract with ORR https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...-core-valley-lines-track-access-agreement.pdf that the definition of a weekday morning Peak Service is one that arrives at Cardiff Central between 0630 and 0900. On a Saturday a peak service is any service calling at Central between 0900 and 1700.

So it’s possible that early morning Coryton trains might run to Queen St and reverse?

Interesting. So despite owning the lines and being the only day to day operator, they have to go through a bereaucratic exercise to find out who might object but don't have to actually provide details?

Perhaps since it's unlikely that anybody is actually going to care there isn't much point spending time ensuring that the document actually makes sense.

The covering notes do refer to removing a path on the Coryton line, but also say: "The additional services are ‘infills’ in the standard hourly timetable on the Rhymney line and the Coryton line."

I guess if anyone objects in principle then they have a more detailed conversation behind closed doors about the timetable specifics. The process is intended for places where you may have multiple competing train operators.

 

[AdamWW]

One further thing - I found in the contract with ORR https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...-core-valley-lines-track-access-agreement.pdf that the definition of a weekday morning Peak Service is one that arrives at Cardiff Central between 0630 and 0900. On a Saturday a peak service is any service calling at Central between 0900 and 1700.

So it’s possible that early morning Coryton trains might run to Queen St and reverse?

Well that explains why there are so many more peak services on a Saturday.

It would be a suprising change to the recently established new timetable if the trains stopped running through to Penarth all day.

I guess if anyone objects in principle then they have a more detailed conversation behind closed doors about the timetable specifics. The process is intended for places where you may have multiple competing train operators.

That makes sense.

One further thing - I found in the contract with ORR https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...-core-valley-lines-track-access-agreement.pdf

Not a good start - the document begins with a contents table full of "Error! Bookmark not defined". (Easily done, thanks to the way Word works).

I realise that BR will have had considerable internal bureaucracy, but I do wonder if it went to quite such detail as we seem to have now.

 

[MikePJ]

It would be a suprising change to the recently established new timetable if the trains stopped running through to Penarth all day.

Yeah, I’m beginning to suspect that the peak numbers may be typos (or more likely a spreadsheet error) as it’s not possible to have five trains go one way on the Coryton branch without five trains going the other way. I have noticed before that these consultation documents appear with errors and then get corrected later (and the deadline extended)

 

[AdamWW]

Yeah, I’m beginning to suspect that the peak numbers may be typos (or more likely a spreadsheet error) as it’s not possible to have five trains go one way on the Coryton branch without five trains going the other way.

Quite!
(Well, unless they ran out of service, which would make little sense)

But it makes it rather harder to understand what it is that they are proposing.
They do seem unlikely as typos but very plausibly a spreadsheet error.
Looking at these documents it does not seem as if there is a process by which somebody checks them for errors before they are issued.

 

[MikePJ]

Quite!
(Well, unless they ran out of service, which would make little sense)

But it makes it rather harder to understand what it is that they are proposing.
They do seem unlikely as typos but very plausibly a spreadsheet error.
Looking at these documents it does not seem as if there is a process by which somebody checks them for errors before they are issued.

From experience, it is extremely hard to proof documents reliably! My partner’s firm does this professionally as a service to their clients, and even they make mistakes occasionally.

 

[AdamWW]

From experience, it is extremely hard to proof documents reliably! My partner’s firm does this professionally as a service to their clients, and even they make mistakes occasionally.

Absolutely. And sometimes silly things (like bookmarks not found, or reverting to a previous version) creep in between proof reading and submission.

However - and maybe they aren't representative - the last two sets of TfW documents that I've seen in this thread seemed to be contain significant errors, not just typos or Word reference failures.

In my line of work (non railway) I'm expected to work to higher standards than that.